If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Gay men will be able to give blood as long as they haven't had sex for 12 months, the Government announced today, overturning a lifetime ban brought in due to the spread of HIV and Aids......But the decision relies on the honesty of the donors as to when they last had sex, which is the same with anyone in an 'at risk' group who wishes to give blood.

...The move came in response to new scientific evidence that found a lifetime ban was an unnecessary safety precaution.....Health officials hope it will lead to an increase in the number of blood donors at a time of shortages across the UK....The change was welcomed by leading lesbian, gay and bisexual organisations who said it was a step forward for equal rights..
SNIP
Although all blood donations are screened for HIV, hepatitis B and C and syphilis very recent infections may not be detected....Scientists now say HIV cannot be detected until four weeks after infection and hepatitis B takes significantly longer.....There is then a second window period in the later stages of infection (up to 12 months) when it may not be detected, which is why there is a deferral period of one year.
SNIP
From November 7 this year, only men who have had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months (with or without a condom) will be asked not to donate blood.....This includes non-infected gay men in monogamous relationships.

Every blood donation is screened for infectious diseases. Every blood donor knows this, and in fact, every donor who's blood tests positive for HIV is notified, which actually reduces the spread of AIDS by people who don't know they are infected.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Every blood donation is screened for infectious diseases. Every blood donor knows this, and in fact, every donor who's blood tests positive for HIV is notified, which actually reduces the spread of AIDS by people who don't know they are infected.

Those tests are overly cautious as well and often have false alarms. A girlfriend of mine got tested positive in that initial screening. The next two weeks were a bit stressful, but yeah it was just a false positive.

In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.

Those tests are overly cautious as well and often have false alarms. A girlfriend of mine got tested positive in that initial screening. The next two weeks were a bit stressful, but yeah it was just a false positive.

That's frightening, but it's better to err on the side of caution to prevent the spread of infection. I don't wish that sort of scare on anyone but that keeps diseases from spreading and makes more people get tested.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.